About your Search

20130416
20130424
STATION
MSNBCW 16
LANGUAGE
English 16
Search Results 0 to 15 of about 16 (some duplicates have been removed)
, foreign policy tends to either stain or illuminate a president's legacy. time will tell which foreign policy position will define the obama years. joining us to discuss from washington is former assistant secretary of state and professor at george washington university, professor pj crowley. professor, thank you for joining us. >> hello. >> pj as we talk about the legacy of the obama doctrine, vis-a-vis our war on terrorists drones. the attacks were motivated to do what they did by the wars in iraq and afghanistan. i'll quote a little bit from that story. the 19-year-old suspect in the boston marathon bombings has told interrogators that the american wars in iraq and afghanistan, motivated he and his brother to carry out the attack. what do you make of that, pj? >> i'm not surprised at all that has been a motivator for jihadists around the world, particularly the u.s. invasion of iraq in 2003. so this just continues a theme, and it's not even unique to the united states. faisal shazad, the times square bomber, said he was motivated by the ongoing drone campaign in pakistan. >> wes, as
's not rocket science. it's just common sense. >>> let's bring in mike, staff writer and celeste, foreign policy analyst from the department of labor's occupational safety and health administration. great to have you both here. when you heard about this, mike and started looking through the osha records, i saw it from your reporting, were you surprised it had been so long since osha inspected the plant? >> no. literally the plant had not been inspected in my lifetime, literally not since 1985. there's not enough osha inspector inspectors for the country. there are so few in texas, it would take 98 years for them to inspect every place once. it didn't surprise me. typically there's only an inspector when a worker calls up and complains and typically only in a union workplace. >> it's a complaint and people come out and not like doors on hazardous work sites. >> occasionally, not that often. >> what is the standard. you would think a fertiliz fertilizer -- about 20 employees in this west fertilizer warehouse where this happened. what is this standard that would prompt a heightened level of scrutin
plitations for civil liberties questions, potentially foreign policy questions. i want to listen for a second to president bush after 9/11 just as a reminder where we were as we talked about what happened in that moment. let's take a listen. >> on september 11th, enemies of freedom committed an act of war against our country. our war on terror begins without data. but it does not end there. it will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated. [ applause ] >> so this set out the parameters,ary that we have been working under for the past decade or more. >> yeah. that was the global war on terror. there was a big gap between that rhetoric we just heard and the legal authority that the president actually had, which under the 2001 authorization of force was to only pursue al qaeda, the taliban and groups directly found responsible for 9/11. we'll continue to have that legal friction both on civil liberties and foreign policy questions. the first instinct to combat is that people are rightfully outraged at these killers. part of what they want to do is
not only a lost opportunity domestically. the foreign policy of this also. the most interesting thing that reagan did early on in foreign policy was the air traffic controller strike and toughness at times at home have repercussions aboeroad. this story got lost because of the boston bombings. >> but helps new awax. you only have to send that message once or twice to have one person go back and go, he is crazy. you know what he just told me? he said he was going to destroy me. >> what the president, what president obama, for reasons not only to him and his nature, clearly does not do or cannot do is something that lyndon johnson did do and this story has been repeated too many times for it not to be apockrifal. frank church a senator from idaho opposed senator johnson on an element of vietnam policy and another senator, i forget which one, wanted a line in an appropriations bill for a dam in his state. and he was on the fence with regard to lyndon johnson's view on vietnam policy. he called the president specifically asking, i need this. kou help me get it? and the president of the un
.o. toward national security and foreign policy which is to say to lighten the american footprint in the reasoning, but to deal with these threats of so that's one point. the other thing is, i don't think that barack obama considers the drones a panacea in the war on terror. and one of his top national security advisers said to me, he sees it as an important tactical weapon that has strategic implications. but mostly, he sees it as an opportunity to try to prevent the next attack in the united states. so he was pretty hard nosed about that. so that's where he is. >> richard, you know, i can make moral and legal arguments for codifying our drone program. the rules of engagement and i have in the past. there is also a very practical argument for getting this down on paper. and increasing the transparency on it. when, not if, when bad actors get their hands on the same technology that we have, and use it in terrible ways, we really lose our ability to lean on our allies and world bodies and ask them to sanction or punish these bad actors for an unaccountable drone program when the ma
of charges that becomes a big foreign policy problem. that's one of the reasons why the state department was so opposed to the waterboarding under colin powell. >> exactly. to have it labeled -- so then you get into the territory of were crimes committed? and what kind of future implications there are for that. >> briefly, before i let you go. we do want to talk about it in more detail, the book. the appreciate now to move the program from the cia back to where many say it afc belonged in the military where there could be more oversight. what you've uncovered is the extent of secret relationships with pakistan, things that have never been reported, never been revealed, i guess, to other than the intel gens community? >> i think when you look at the history of the secret war since 9/11, there's so much that's gone on in the shadows that we have not known about and not certainly told to the public or told to congress. as you said, pressure is building to become more transparent. president obama set in the state of the union there would be more transparency, and we'll see what happens. >> t
been postponed. they let us know that that is being postponed and there is a foreign policy component and kerry has been involved in the briefings as a native bostonian. he was emotionally affected in the last couple of days. we noticed that. >> and roger, as we are going through these initial reports and what they are getting in,they are getting everything foreign and domestic and going through old intercepts right now. did they miss something or something that they thought was nothing to it. >> they are going through cell phone records. >> completely. as andrea said, washington has no immediate role. this is all tactical and local, but it's about pulling all the strings on information and see what exactly is the picture that now can be participated. when i was at the white house, it was getting information and bringing it into the west wing and make sure the president had a list of understanding at that moment and reminding everyone that first reports are often wrong and we'll wait for corroboration and confirmation. you expect the president to be careful what he says publicly and m
the implications here in terms of foreign policy and possibly national security and how the white house responds in the coming days. first before we do that, i want to play some sound from dzhokah tsarnaev's uncle who came and spoke to the press earlier this morning, talking about check nia, the checken identity in the united states, let's play a little of that sound. >> hatred to those who were able to settle themselves. these are the only reasons i can imagine of. anything else, anything else to do with religion, with islam, that's a fraud. it's a fake. >> "the new york times" white house correspondent, peter baker is with us. peter, thanks for joining us, you were the moscow bureau chief for four years and covered the second chechen war. a lot of folks in america are hearing the word chechnya for the first time and don't understand the dynamics between chechnya, russia and the united states. can you give us a little primer about the sort of tumult in the region? >> it's a good question. we're learning a lot today, a lot of americans haven't focused on what has been chilling situation for many
. there are people on the other side of the world that don't like our foreign policy, in the middle east who don't like our culture in any way. to them we're the enemy. doesn't it stun you, mr. mayor, people from a breakaway or rebellious former soviet union have come and killed anonymously people they don't even know but know them as fellow inhabitants of america, just as a slaughter? and we don't have a front with chechnya. we don't have a beef with them. or them with us. that just, to me, is like -- i almost feel like i don't know anything to say at this point sometimes. >> it was a total shocker to me. i went through about ten different scenarios yesterday who it could be, from, you know, islamic radicals to right-wing crazies, to just isolated people who were just nuts. i never would have thought of chechnya. the fact is, if anything, we're seen as somewhat sympathetic with the chechnyans and overcritical of the russians. maybe we're right or wrong. that's the way it's seen. i was in russia a day after the attacks in beslan, you know, that really were a tremendous shock to the russian peopl
on there that was of a foreign policy priority of the united states. particularly in the world of counterterrorism. if in fact, ties can be confirmed, this changed things significantly. >> what kind of precedent is there in your mind for this kind of attack where we're seeing tactics of somewhat conventional terrorist hit, followed up by what is essentially criminals fleeing and car jacking and tangling with police? is that a format that we've seen in other terrorist incidents? >> in the aftermath of the attacks on monday, we knew they were not suicide attacks. many people assume that the perpetrators were going to flee to try and hide out. there's a lot of references to the eric rudolph model during the centennial park bombing in 1996. it turned out what we had was a third situation. where these individuals constructed additional explosive devices, were planning to conduct additional attacks and because of i think the fbi press conference where they publicized their photos it triggered them into doing something entirely different. probably different from what their plan was on the aftermath of the attack on
school massacre. over 300 killed, mostly children. the moscow metro bombing, 39 people killed. foreign policy has an interesting anal a sysianalysis. chernen writes the numerous terror strikes have not been included in the short list of major terrorist attacks, america's 9/11, london's 7-7, and spain. instead, russia was placed in a different category where like in israel, terrorism was deemed a response to the government's repression, rather than an attack against humanity as such. that's obviously one person's take. in the broader conversation about global terror, those attacks are not often included in the same list. >> although if you are living in moscow or living in russia, you would certainly say they were terrorism. the russians did at the time say they were attacks of terrorism. a conversation we're having now is a reminder of why we do need to know what's happening around the world. why it matters what's happening in chechnya, the capital was flattened during the war there. that chows of chechens have been killed and at some point we have to wake up to the fact that the world
and we could concentrate solely on traditional foreign policy threats like iran and syria and the instability of the korean peninsula. of course those threats remain large but this shows we are still a country in terrorist cross hairs both from abroad and from within. >> it sounds like you think this will reshape our focus as well. >> i think it will, no question about that. but at the same time we've got to make sure that we don't single out one particular community for attack and os t tracism. >> it's very common for them to sfwring we don't care at all to we exaggerate the threat. this is a common pendulum swing. it's also a mistake. and what we've also seen, just in the last week, is most of the coverage and most of the discussion by elites on both side of the aisle has been far more measured than what you just read by representative king. >> but it was measured because we were still a country in crisis. now that it seems that the crisis, perhaps, has subsided, now the nuts will come out. >> that's true, and this is where the media plays an even bigger role. in the mon
. and really at the heart of it is the fact that one of obama's enduring legacies when it comes to foreign policy, he has solidified assassination as an essential component of policy. >> they can do it in the shadows, as you pointed out. in the book, i would say there hasn't been a lot of public resistance aside from people like you and others in the press. how have they done this without facing much resistance? publicly or inside the government from people who should be stepping up and saying, wait a minute, we can't kill u.s. citizens without due process? >> right, i think there's no question that if john mccain had won the election in 2008 or mitt romney had won it in 2012 that liberals would be screaming about this stuff and saying, you know, that -- there would be this thing, war crimes, we should do impeachment and the reality is that i think a lot of people -- and i think this is sincere. a lot of people so fed up with the iraq war, perceived as the sort of crimes of the bush administration they wanted it to end and the obama administration has sold people a bill of goods. the idea
think about in modern history any time there's been an attack by an immigrant or foreign born national in this country, it directly affected immigration policy. in 1993, the bombing led to the 1996 immigration overhaul which kicked a lot of immigrants off welfare and tightened up a lot of things there. after 9/11 there was a lot of different culture about immigration changing entirely. we had books defendi ining internme internment. even tknow there's no connectio, it will affect things. >> let's play sound from senator dick durbin. a member of the gang of eight. >> the worst thing we can do is nothing. if we do nothing leaving 11 million people in the shadows not making borders safer, not having information that comes from employment and these visa holders, we will be less safe in america. immigration reform will make us safer. >> victoria, what's your take on this? what's this going to mean for immigration reform? >> it absolutely will make us safer. we'll see millions more dollars going into border enforcement. one of the key provisions is we'll have an effective visa entry and exit
who the individual is, if they are a foreign national -- >> or a group of individuals. >> -- or a group of individuals, it's the way which that person then initially directly connects to our policy. >> do you think that's right with respect to law enforcement, do you think the division between the timothy mcveigh's of the world and muhammads of the world? >> i think that it doesn't really. i mean, i believe -- this is from my experience, you cannot and should not get tunnel vision looking for a specific, you know, because somebody has a particular faith, they pray five times a day, therefore, it's an international terrorism versus a timothy mcveigh type. we have seen so many cases where you have -- >> let me just say, it could be a left wing terrorist, we literally know nothing. someone who is mad at his or her ex-spouse who happened to be working the medic tent. >> what you need to focus on is the activity, the race, religion, you know, all of that really is irrelevant when it comes to you have to be able to prove the activity isn't furtherance of terror. >> this is w
Search Results 0 to 15 of about 16 (some duplicates have been removed)